Pro-Choice? Only for One Choice

There's some "smoke and mirrors" going on in the prominent news reporting on the Obama Administration's announcement to rescind the conscience regulation instituted by the Bush Administration.  Combined with the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services, it looks like pro-life health-care workers are not going to have a choice much longer.

The Administration's announcement rescinding the conscience rule described it as too broad, affirming that it favors a conscience clause that is more narrowly written.  Some have claimed that the rule is superfluous because there's a Federal Law that covers the same ground.  There is some important background that led to the Bush Administration's conscience regulation that specifically directed and empowered HHS to take up these cases.  The Federal Law is not as clear as some might think, thus not protecting practitioners from being coerced into participating in or being an accomplice to abortion.

The new rules were targeted at enforcing existing freedom-of-conscience rules in response to specific attempts to undermine them. Concern had been brewing for some time about the possible erosion of established conscience rights. (For more information on existing conscience regulations, see this explanation in the Federal Register, specifically the background contained in the introduction). Schweer points to the fact that in 2007 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued Committee Opinion No. 385, “The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine,” which reads, in part:

Physicians and other health care providers have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request. Providers with moral or religious objections should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place.

The next month, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) issued new requirements for board certification. ABOG rules state that a physician may be denied certification if “an individual has had their Diplomate status revoked by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology for cause. . . . Cause in this case may be due to, but is not limited to, licensure revocation by any State Board of Medical Examiners, violation of ABOG or ACOG rules and/or ethics principles or felony convictions.”

It is HHS, as a member of the enforcement branch of government, that is responsible for enforcing laws in its field.  There's actually quite a lot of discretion in the kinds of thing agencies choose to pay attention to.  They can be active or passive, proactive or reactive.  The conscience rule was meant to clarify the Federal Law and empower HHS to protect health care workers who oppose abortion.  Rescinding that rule potentially sends the message to HHS not to actively protect the rights of these professionals. 

And the "narrower" rule that the current Administration says it favors very likely would mean that if a doctor does not want to perform an abortion, she still must refer a patient to where the woman can obtain one.  Most pro-life doctors would still consider this a violation of their conscience making them an accomplice.  The Obama Administrations view seems to be that a woman's right to choose an abortion is so sacred that the right of others' consciences must be violated for the former's sake.  The Federal conscience law apparently would support this kind of interpretation and a new HHS regulation would gut the intent of the conscience law leaving pro-life health care professionals with only two choices: be an accomplice to a heinous act or leave the profession. 

Gov. Sebelius' nomination seems to support the worst-case scenario on this issue.  Her actions as governor indicate she is a pro-abortion absolutist and not the moderate she claims.  She opposed a state law banning partial-birth abortion.  She vetoed parental-notification legislation and safety regulations to protect patients from filthy conditions found in a Kansas abortion clinic.  And there is reason to believe she hindered the prosecution of late-term abortionist George Tiller after Kansas voters outlawed the hideous act.  HHS Secretary Sebelius isn't very likely to take up the cause of health care workers with a pro-life conscience threatened by their employers, licensing agencies, or pro-abortion lawyers coercing others to participate in a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Though some consider a woman's right to choose is sacred, there's a much longer history of Americans considering an individual's conscience is sacred and should not be coerced into violation.  The inner-workings of government agencies are rarely ever highlighted in news coverage, or explained adequately and accurately when they are.  I believe that most Americans would be appalled that doctors and nurses could be forced to violate their consciences and would want their government to protect this right, but will most Americans ever find out if and when it happens?

And for the life of me, I do not understand how the two pro-life Kansas Senators could congratulate and support Sebelius' nomination.

Comments

[Jed]

If a health care professional refuses to refer the patient to an abortion clinic, is that considered a prosecutable offense? Or a case of medical negligence that could be taken to court? Do you know of any info. about this?

[Viper-Raud]

Couldent they just solve it by as they stated, placing people who wouldent mind referring someone to a place where they could get an abortion? Thats pretty rotten to jack someones job out if they refuse to referr somebody.

[Jesse]

Now this is fascinating,

She vetoed parental-notification legislation and safety regulations to protect patients from filthy conditions found in a Kansas abortion clinic.

In light of this, is the pro-choice movement really about protecting women and keeping them safe?

[kpolo]

This is even more fascinating ...

"And for the life of me, I do not understand how the two pro-life Kansas Senators could congratulate and support Sebelius' nomination."

As long as we have these phony(?) pro-lifers, the cause isn't going anywhere.

Would Sam Brownback congratulate the nomination of a serial killer known to rip unwanted children limb to limb? If no, then his support shows that he doesn't get the fundamental argument against abortion.

[mike]

Melinda, thanks for providing your always-erudite analysis. Whom, would you say, are the best government officials for us to contact on this issue? Just elected federal representatives? Or is there some way to communicate directly with HHS?

[RonH]

What can they be thinking?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/06/news/LT-Brazil-Girls-Abortion.php

RonH

[RonH]

And I do mean the church.

[Todd]

Hi Ron

If the mothers life wasn't really in danger, they were thinking that the unborn children didn't deserve to die, even though their father was a rapist.

Todd